Democrats Revive Doubts on Census

By FELICITY BARRINGER,

Published: November 20, 1991

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19—
Congressional Democrats revived the lingering questions about the accuracy of the 1990 census today by issuing a subpoena to force Commerce Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher to make public the second, adjusted set of census figures whose use he had rejected in July.

The House Census and Population Subcommittee of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, led by Representative Tom Sawyer, Democrat of Ohio, voted 3 to 2 along party lines to subpoena the full set of adjusted figures, including information at the neighborhood level. Mr. Sawyer said the adjusted figures were needed for scientific analysis into the strengths and weaknesses of the census methodology.

The Commerce Department, the Census Bureau's parent agency, has refused to release the full set of figures, arguing, as Under Secretary Michael Darby did today, that the adjusted figures are "bad numbers" with "large numbers of random errors."

Mr. Darby and Mr. Mosbacher have both argued that the release of a second Federal population count could disrupt the legislative redistricting now in progress in statehouses around the country. But Mr. Sawyer countered that that should not be the Commerce Department's concern. What's at Stake

While both sides talked around the issue of politics, the partisan agendas were clear. Although new political maps have been approved in 14 states, redistricting has not yet been concluded in 36 others and has barely begun in the behemoth states of California and New York.

The Constitution requires the use of official census figures for the apportionment of Congressional seats among the states. But if the adjusted figures are released, there is nothing to bar most states from using them instead of the official census numbers.

The adjusted census figures, with their greater numbers of Hispanic and black residents, would be likely to change the new political maps, probably enhancing the strength of inner cities, and they could influence the outcome in the battle for control of a statehouse. Many experts, though not all, believe that Democrats would gain an advantage if a state like California used adjusted figures for legislative redistricting, while the Republican-dominated suburban areas would be at a disadvantage.

Even in states where redistricting is already complete, the failure to use the adjusted figures could give minority groups a new basis to claim disenfranchisement and to challenge political maps in court.

Speaking of Mr. Mosbacher's concern about disrupting the redistricting process, Mr. Sawyer said: "The fact of the matter is that redistricting can take place at any time during a deacde. If we wait until redistricting is no longer a possibility, we'll be waiting for the data until the year 2000." Since taxpayers paid for the $35 million survey that became the basis for the adjusted figures, he added, taxpayers have a right to the results.

Mr. Sawyer and the Commerce Department had been working toward a compromise, but negotiations stalled this week, with Mr. Sawyer insisting on the release of at least half the data while the Commerce Department would give no more than one-sixth.

Mr. Sawyer said a full set of adjusted census figures was given to lawyers on Friday, on court orders, in a suit by New York City, Los Angeles, and 16 other cities, 7 states, 4 counties and 6 organizations representing minorities who seek to force an adjustment of the 1990 census.

Peter Zimroth, a lawyer representing New York City in that challenge, said today that an assistant had been given three boxes of computer tapes with the data, but that the court had issued a "protective order" requiring that the contents be kept secret. How Big an Undercount?

After the census subcommittee's meeting today, Mr. Darby said recent analyses had found that the adjusted figures, prepared in May under the pressure of legal deadlines, were seriously flawed. For one thing, he said, the estimate that 5.3 million people were undercounted was off by more than 30 percent. The total undercount, he said, was closer to 3.5 million people. The census counted 248.7 million people as residents of the United States or in Government service overseas as of April 1, 1990.

Mr. Darby said he still hoped that the department and the subcommittee could reach a compromise before Dec. 9, the deadline in the panel's subpoena. A Commerce Department spokeswoman, Marci Robinson, also spoke of the department's desire for a compromise. "The issuance of a subpoena is unnecessary," she said in a prepared statement. The department, she said, "will continue to work with the subcommittee to find a suitable compromise to satisfy the subcommittee's legitimate oversight needs while safeguarding the integrity of the 1990 decennial census."

The results of the census, one of the most controversial in history, have also prompted lawsuits by Montana and Massachusetts, which both lose Congressional seats and are seeking to force the use of the adjusted figures. In addition, State Representative Willie Brown, Speaker of the California Assembly, has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in an effort to compel the Commerce Department to release the adjusted figures.

In July, Mr. Mosbacher overruled his Census Bureau director and decided against using the adjusted figures. While he agreed that the adjusted census figures, based on a post-census survey of 171,000 households, were potentially more accurate at the national and state levels, he said they became less accurate in smaller geographical subdivisions. Because of the high risk of local inaccuracies, he said, he chose to stick with the figures produced by the traditional headcount.